There’s a lot of rationalisation going on with opposition to EVs. However, as much as I love the exhaust note on my sporty French hatchback, I’m seriously considering an EV for my next motor vehicle (a French one, naturellement).
There are several things to say in relation to the frequent objections raised. Firstly, while opponents gleefully post videos of EV fires on social media, they conveniently ignore the proven fact (which you can also read about in car magazines!) that they catch fire less frequently than ICE vehicles, on a pro rata basis. As noted previously, though, those fires are harder to put out.
The matter of the source of energy can be an issue in some places, but even in the USA an increasing proportion of the electrical grid energy is produced by renewable source, even in Texas. Here, although our hydro-electric powered grid is tainted by connection to the Australian national grid, it’s much less so, even to zero when we are in export mode, and coal-fired generation is on the way out, albeit slowly while the old power stations steam along to their end-of-life points.
Charging point availability is an issue in many places (not Norway, I hear) but so was petrol in the early days, until distribution networks were developed. In my situation, a future EV will mostly be charged from our rooftop solar PV, but we’ll keep an ICE car for long journeys because of the early-stage charging network we have at present. On a side note, clueless EV enthusiasts who babble on about on-car solar charging don’t have a realistic grip on the situation – I’ve given up pointing out that you get around 700 Watts per square metre falling on a solar panel, at best, and even doubling current PV efficiencies means that a practical vehicle is going to be sitting in the sun for a very long time to get any range from that source. Simple mathematics is a lost cause for some people.
Weight is a problem, though. The only positive that comes from it is that the batteries are positioned low in the vehicle, making for a low centre of mass, with associated benefits for roadholding, while you have control of the situation, of course. When you compare sheer mass and its centre, though, the laws of physics mean that you’re probably better off in a tricky situation than, say, in a massive top-heavy vehicle like a RAM, especially one with a jacked-up suspension. Dunderheads, nonetheless, think they can defy the laws of physics, assuming they even know about them in the first place.
The increased weight does mean you need special tyres and you’re going to have to change them more often, which not only means more waste disposal (governments have to get serious about that anyway), but more micro-plastics entering the waterways from tyre-wear particles.
Hydrogen, as much as I like the idea, is probably only going to be viable for long-distance heavy transport. Liquid hydrogen is too difficult to store in a regular motor car, because of the need to maintain it at near absolute zero temperature. Compounding it in a substance like ammonia is a better method, but that has its own toxic problems (which is why it rapidly fell from use as a refrigerant when fluorocarbons were developed).
Overall, though, synthetic petroleum fuels should hold out hope for the ICE enthusiasts. A completely renewable-sourced plant in Chile is already turning out liquid fuel for Porsche’s future racing program. So classic car owners should not despair, me included.
